Smith v. State of New Mexico

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 9 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RICHARD SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 03-2292
v. (D. New Mexico)
STATE OF NEW MEXICO; (D.C. No. CIV-03-139-MCA/RLP)
WILLIAM C. BIRDSALL, Eleventh
Judicial District Court, personally and
in his official capacity as a New
Mexico District Court Judge; and
SANDRA PRICE, personally and in
her official capacity as a New Mexico
Chief Deputy District Attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , MURPHY , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.
After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this court has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Proceeding pro se, Richard Smith appeals the district court’s sua sponte
dismissal of the civil rights complaint he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Smith filed the action against Sandra Price, the New Mexico chief deputy district
attorney; the Honorable William C. Birdsall, a New Mexico State District Court
judge; and the State of New Mexico. Smith alleged that defendants’ actions,
taken in both their individual and official capacities, violated his Fourth
Amendment rights and his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
The district court first concluded that Price and Birdsall were entitled to
absolute immunity as to any claims asserted against them in their individual
capacities. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons , 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993); Wiggins v. N.M.
State Supreme Court Clerk , 664 F.2d 812, 815 (10th Cir. 1981). Further, the
claims asserted against the State of New Mexico and against Price and Birdsall
while acting in their official capacities failed because “neither a State nor its
officials, acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’” against whom a claim
for damages can be brought pursuant to § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State
Police , 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Finally, the court concluded that any other claims
for damages Smith asserted against the State of New Mexico were barred by the
-2-
State’s sovereign immunity from suit. Accordingly, the district court dismissed
Smith’s complaint with prejudice.
Smith first challenges the dismissal of the complaint on the merits. 1
Because the district court’s order relied on both § 1915(e)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6),
we will apply the Rule 12(b)(6) de novo standard of review in this case. See
Perkins v. Kansas Dept. of Corr ., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999). We have
reviewed the briefs and the applicable law and have found no reversible error in
the district court’s analysis. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Smith’s
complaint.
Smith also argues that the district court should not have dismissed the
complaint with prejudice without first giving him notice. This court, however,
has held that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a pro se complaint under
Rule 12(b)(6) “when it is ‘patently obvious’ that the plaintiff could not prevail on
the facts alleged, and allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would
be futile.” Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991) (citation
omitted). It is clear from our review of the record that Smith cannot prevail on
1
Smith’s motion to amend his opening brief, as corrected by the errata
sheet, is granted.
-3-
the facts alleged in his complaint and allowing him the opportunity to amend the
complaint would be futile. Consequently, the district court did not err when it
dismissed Smith’s complaint sua sponte .
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-